In breaking news, the American Center for Law and Justice or ACLJ (Jay Sekulow's organization, not related to his role as the President's attorney), has obtained actual copies of the immunity agreements pertaining to Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson in the Hillary email scandal. This was a stunning litigation win, hard-fought after years of litigation by the ACLJ attorneys, who were unable to extract the documents through the normal FOIA processes, due to a lack of cooperation by the government.

In reviewing what the agreements uncovered, keep in mind that Cheryl Mills was Secretary Clinton's Chief of Staff at the State Department and then bizarrely, she subsequently served as Clinton’s attorney, representing her in the email scandal. Heather Samuelson worked on Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign, and then became a Senior Advisor to her at the State Department, as well as the White House liaison. Somehow, she also became one of Clinton's personal attorneys during the email scandal.

The immunity agreements issued by the government, were crafted so that the agencies could extract information from the parties, despite the fact that this is not necessary because DOJ has the power to require that the information be turned over. Clinton kept classified emails on a private server in violation of Federal law, and the immunity agreements reveal that both Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson were actively involved in the cover-up of these emails as well as in the destruction of evidence. According to Jordon Sekulow, Executive Director of the ACLJ, it is extremely unusual for someone involved in a criminal cover up, who needs an immunity deal to ensure the evasion of jail time, later becomes the attorney representing the other potential criminal or co-conspirator.

The agreements issued were with DOJ and the FBI. They asserted that Mills and Samuelson would turn over the computers to them, but stipulated that they weren't turning over "custody and control". This critical point is a legal and factual bunch of bunk. The FOIA statute applies to information in the agencies' "custody and control". Anything not in their custody or control cannot be FOIA'd. It is impossible to have an agency physically have a computer and not have it in their "custody or control." Custody and control is not something that suspects have to expressly give over or agree to give over. When they give over the evidence, then obviously, as a matter of fact, they are also giving the agency "custody and control" over that evidence. Suspects cannot withhold "custody and control" by mere words or lack of consent, as consent is not required. In other words, these agreements are extremely flawed and whomever signed off on them should be investigated and perhaps prosecuted. It is clear that the purpose of this clause was to make the arguably illegal activities of Mills and Samuelson out of the reach of FOIA --- in other words, it would be withheld from the public. This is the very definition of corruption.

Additionally, the immunity agreements were broad in scope. There were numerous charges that the agreements gave them immunity from including potential violations of the Federal Records Act, the Classified Information Act and the Espionage Act. According to the ACLJ, nobody has ever gotten immunity from the Espionage Act before.Normally, immunity is for lesser crimes like obstruction of justice, but not espionage. If Mills and Samuelson were charged and convicted of every crime from which they received immunity, they would be potentially subject to twenty-eight years in jail each.

After Clinton illegally sent classified emails on a private server and cell phones (and by the way, people have gone to jail for this even when they did so accidentally because it's that serious), and after Mills and Samuelson purposely worked to cover up and conceal both the emails and the destruction of evidence, and after they were given a sweetheart deal that nobody in history has ever gotten, they became the attorneys for Clinton, representing her in the email case. This shouldn't be allowed because it is a conflict of interests, and not only gives the appearance of impropriety, but indeed, constitutes actual impropriety.

Subsequently, Mills and Samuelson finally gave the computers over to the FBI, which per their agreements, limited the FBI’s investigation. The FBI agreed to limit a) the method by which the emails investigated would be obtained; b) the scope of files which would be investigated, and c) the timeframe parameters for investigated emails. In other words, the FBI agreed in the immunity contracts not to do a full investigation on the Clinton emails. To make matters worse, again, per the immunity agreements, the FBI agreed to destroy the computers that had the back-up emails. As Congressman Jim Jordan referenced during the Mueller hearings recently, the FBI used bleachBit to purge the server so the information could never be accessed in the future and used hammers to smash the cell phones involved. In other words, the FBI and DOJ participated in the destruction of the evidence. In effect, this constitutes is a conspiracy between the Obama DOJ (under Loretta Lynch) and the Comey-led FBI to cover up Clinton’s crimes.

Shortly thereafter, Comey came out publicly and held a press conference exonerating Clinton from any criminal activity, knowing full well that she was never thoroughly investigated, and that his own agency had participated in the destruction of evidence.

To reiterate Comey’s assertions, he stated that Clinton had been "extremely careless" in her handling of classified and sensitive information, but not "grossly negligent", even though the definition of grossly negligent is extremely careless. Gross negligence is the language in the statute necessary to prosecute someone who does this and Comey inaccurately professed that no prosecutor would pursue a case based on these facts, even though those with lesser evidence have indeed been charged.

Currently, there are investigations taking place pertaining to the Clinton email scandal cover-up, as well as the origins of the Trump investigation by the Mueller team, including the roots of the FISA applications. All of the documents uncovered by the ACLJ’s legal win will constitute valuable evidence for AG Bill Barr, the IG and others. Many who follow what is really going on, on a day to day basis have been repeatedly disappointed in the biased and one-sided investigations and the cover-up or blatant disregard of critical facts implicating the pro-Clinton, anti-Trump teams. But Bill Barr and his team are fairly new to the process. He and others, including John Durham, will finally have the opportunity to get to the bottom of all this --- and finally disclose the real collusion, corruption, and obstruction. There’s still hope.

ABOUT DEBORAH WEISSDeborah Weiss, Esq. is a regular contributor to Frontpage Magazine. She is also a contributing author to the book, “Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamic Terrorist Network”, the main researcher and writer for “Council on American-Islamic Relations: Its Use of Lawfare and Intimidation” and the author of “The Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s Jihad on Free Speech.” Her work can be found at http://www.vigilancenow.org.

_________________The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links

In breaking news, the American Center for Law and Justice or ACLJ (Jay Sekulow's organization, not related to his role as the President's attorney), has obtained actual copies of the immunity agreements pertaining to Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson in the Hillary email scandal. This was a stunning litigation win, hard-fought after years of litigation by the ACLJ attorneys, who were unable to extract the documents through the normal FOIA processes, due to a lack of cooperation by the government.

In reviewing what the agreements uncovered, keep in mind that Cheryl Mills was Secretary Clinton's Chief of Staff at the State Department and then bizarrely, she subsequently served as Clinton’s attorney, representing her in the email scandal. Heather Samuelson worked on Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign, and then became a Senior Advisor to her at the State Department, as well as the White House liaison. Somehow, she also became one of Clinton's personal attorneys during the email scandal.

The immunity agreements issued by the government, were crafted so that the agencies could extract information from the parties, despite the fact that this is not necessary because DOJ has the power to require that the information be turned over. Clinton kept classified emails on a private server in violation of Federal law, and the immunity agreements reveal that both Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson were actively involved in the cover-up of these emails as well as in the destruction of evidence. According to Jordon Sekulow, Executive Director of the ACLJ, it is extremely unusual for someone involved in a criminal cover up, who needs an immunity deal to ensure the evasion of jail time, later becomes the attorney representing the other potential criminal or co-conspirator.

The agreements issued were with DOJ and the FBI. They asserted that Mills and Samuelson would turn over the computers to them, but stipulated that they weren't turning over "custody and control". This critical point is a legal and factual bunch of bunk. The FOIA statute applies to information in the agencies' "custody and control". Anything not in their custody or control cannot be FOIA'd. It is impossible to have an agency physically have a computer and not have it in their "custody or control." Custody and control is not something that suspects have to expressly give over or agree to give over. When they give over the evidence, then obviously, as a matter of fact, they are also giving the agency "custody and control" over that evidence. Suspects cannot withhold "custody and control" by mere words or lack of consent, as consent is not required. In other words, these agreements are extremely flawed and whomever signed off on them should be investigated and perhaps prosecuted. It is clear that the purpose of this clause was to make the arguably illegal activities of Mills and Samuelson out of the reach of FOIA --- in other words, it would be withheld from the public. This is the very definition of corruption.

Additionally, the immunity agreements were broad in scope. There were numerous charges that the agreements gave them immunity from including potential violations of the Federal Records Act, the Classified Information Act and the Espionage Act. According to the ACLJ, nobody has ever gotten immunity from the Espionage Act before.Normally, immunity is for lesser crimes like obstruction of justice, but not espionage. If Mills and Samuelson were charged and convicted of every crime from which they received immunity, they would be potentially subject to twenty-eight years in jail each.

After Clinton illegally sent classified emails on a private server and cell phones (and by the way, people have gone to jail for this even when they did so accidentally because it's that serious), and after Mills and Samuelson purposely worked to cover up and conceal both the emails and the destruction of evidence, and after they were given a sweetheart deal that nobody in history has ever gotten, they became the attorneys for Clinton, representing her in the email case. This shouldn't be allowed because it is a conflict of interests, and not only gives the appearance of impropriety, but indeed, constitutes actual impropriety.

Subsequently, Mills and Samuelson finally gave the computers over to the FBI, which per their agreements, limited the FBI’s investigation. The FBI agreed to limit a) the method by which the emails investigated would be obtained; b) the scope of files which would be investigated, and c) the timeframe parameters for investigated emails. In other words, the FBI agreed in the immunity contracts not to do a full investigation on the Clinton emails. To make matters worse, again, per the immunity agreements, the FBI agreed to destroy the computers that had the back-up emails. As Congressman Jim Jordan referenced during the Mueller hearings recently, the FBI used bleachBit to purge the server so the information could never be accessed in the future and used hammers to smash the cell phones involved. In other words, the FBI and DOJ participated in the destruction of the evidence. In effect, this constitutes is a conspiracy between the Obama DOJ (under Loretta Lynch) and the Comey-led FBI to cover up Clinton’s crimes.

Shortly thereafter, Comey came out publicly and held a press conference exonerating Clinton from any criminal activity, knowing full well that she was never thoroughly investigated, and that his own agency had participated in the destruction of evidence.

To reiterate Comey’s assertions, he stated that Clinton had been "extremely careless" in her handling of classified and sensitive information, but not "grossly negligent", even though the definition of grossly negligent is extremely careless. Gross negligence is the language in the statute necessary to prosecute someone who does this and Comey inaccurately professed that no prosecutor would pursue a case based on these facts, even though those with lesser evidence have indeed been charged.

Currently, there are investigations taking place pertaining to the Clinton email scandal cover-up, as well as the origins of the Trump investigation by the Mueller team, including the roots of the FISA applications. All of the documents uncovered by the ACLJ’s legal win will constitute valuable evidence for AG Bill Barr, the IG and others. Many who follow what is really going on, on a day to day basis have been repeatedly disappointed in the biased and one-sided investigations and the cover-up or blatant disregard of critical facts implicating the pro-Clinton, anti-Trump teams. But Bill Barr and his team are fairly new to the process. He and others, including John Durham, will finally have the opportunity to get to the bottom of all this --- and finally disclose the real collusion, corruption, and obstruction. There’s still hope.

ABOUT DEBORAH WEISSDeborah Weiss, Esq. is a regular contributor to Frontpage Magazine. She is also a contributing author to the book, “Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamic Terrorist Network”, the main researcher and writer for “Council on American-Islamic Relations: Its Use of Lawfare and Intimidation” and the author of “The Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s Jihad on Free Speech.” Her work can be found at http://www.vigilancenow.org.

Holy Christ that is bad! The fact that the FBI would allow the presence of two direct subordinates at State to pretend to be Hildabeast's attorneys when they were exchanging classified emails with their boss as part of their job is shocking.

I don't think they could even ethically represent her. It is an obvious Clintonian style dodge to avoid telling the truth. I would like to know who at FBI authorized that. Pretty scuzzy behavior by DOJ fighting the FOIA rules as well. Somebody knows it looks bad.

_________________I haven't figured out how to the block thingy works but if anyone alters my posts I will become really, really angry and throw monkey poop out of my cage.

Guarantee there is a helluva lot more Clintonian gonad chortling to be found in these gov't agencies, too. Not just the Russia Collusion coup attempt, either.

The thing is, I'm still waiting on ONE F*CKING DEMOCRAT to be held responsible. Just one. We keep hearing about 'disturbing new revelations' and how people in the FBI and DOJ are on record committing perjury. Where are the f*cking indictments???

This is why Dems always get away with murder (literally). The Republican party is 100% ball free.

If the situation were reversed, if we had found out that Bush had fabricated a dossier and used it to spy on Obama for example, they would have 20 Republicans in chains by now.

_________________---------------------------------If those who can do, and those who can't teach, what does that say about a sex education teacher?

By Tadas KlimasThe astounding claims of the former Overstock CEO, Patrick Byrne, have set the media and social media world afire. As well they should.

Yet it seems that the pundits do not recognize the most scandalous and troublesome ramifications of his revelations — that a suspected Russian agent was allowed by the government to contact and target Republican presidential campaigns in order, in the event of a Republican victory, to compromise that new Republican president by accusing him of having contacts with that very same Russian agent.

The Russians call this "having kompromat." They even have a short form for it, since everyone knows what it means: "kompra."

Patrick Byrne, in an amazing interview conducted by Fox's Martha MacCallum, tells a tale of being tasked by rogue or illegitimate elements of the FBI to spy on a female Russian national in order to learn of her own activities, which consisted of allegedly collecting political intelligence about presidential candidates.

The Russian, one Marina Butina, is serving a prison sentence in the U.S., having pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to act as an agent of a foreign official.

Byrne appears to have stepped forward with his allegations because the FBI reportedly denied that Byrne had been an informant. The FBI furthermore denied having exculpatory information regarding Butina, yet Byrne claimed to have provided such information. (Exculpatory material must, by law, be provided to a defendant's lawyers.)

The story becomes even more piquant because Byrne had been the CEO of a publicly traded corporation when he initially came forward, and now, because of his claims, he has had to quit that position. Thus, the man has come under a great deal of public scrutiny and even lost something of great worth, because of madness, or foolishness, or because of a desire to tell the truth.

It seems that the professional chatterers are having a hard time recognizing the most shattering allegation Byrne made (Jesse Watters comes close here) — one which, if true, shows that a rogue group of top FBI and other officials acted in a seditious manner.

To wit: In the MacCallum interview, Byrne alleges that Butina had been tasked to make a contact in each of the following campaigns: that of Hillary Clinton, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Donald Trump. Byrne further alleges that after she made contact in the Clinton campaign, she told him (and he told the FBI) that she was going to focus only on the Republican candidates.

And then Byrne says, "At that point, the interest of the United States government in doing anything about this [activity of Butina against the Republican candidates] went to zero" (@11:10). Indeed, Byrne claims the attitude was "we're going to let it all happen" (@11:19).

The significance of this is that, if true, top FBI and other officials wanted an insurance policy — that is, in the event of a Republican victory, they wanted kompromat: to be able to accuse and discredit the Republican president and his campaign of having had "ties" to the Russian government.

The fact that these "contacts and ties" would have been caused on purpose by the inaction of the FBI would be an inconvenient fact to sweep under a rug.

This kind of thing is the exact opposite of how the FBI is supposed to work and the exact opposite of what it is supposed to achieve. After all, in such a situation, it is possible to warn a candidate to disassociate a campaign from certain people — as President Trump has pointed out was not done in his case.

Indeed, if Byrne's allegations are true, those who engineered this were not only cynical, but willing to destabilize the republic. The word "sedition" comes to mind.

Tadas Klimas is a former FBI agent, awarded the National Intelligence Medal of Achievement (NIMA).

I watched most of this interview on Fox News when it occurred last week.

Parts of it sounds pretty unbelievable.

On the other hand no more unbelievable sounding than the thought that an FBI Agent and DOF lawyer would ever be chatting over preventing a person from being elected President.

And before anyone steps in to accuse Fox News of hosting screwy stories, Mr. Byre made the rounds on other networks as well:

_________________The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links

I still haven't seen a "smokin' gun" in the "get the bad muc rats" investigation, making me skeptical that maybe this one is sort of the RED version of the mewler wild goose chase (the BLUE version) ???

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum